make me some tea:Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)

Well, Obama has done nothing but expand gun rights in the last four years, so they need to get a good soundbite of him saying something anti-gun, like "I don't think we should allow unmedicated schizophrenic people to own their own bazookas without a preliminary background check."

make me some tea:Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)

Military-grade firearms are to what we civilians currently have access to as military vehicles are to the H2. Maybe they share some characteristics, but only someone ignorant of how vehicles are built and used would believe the civilian version of the hummer is capable of performing military missions.

Dancin_In_Anson:Rev.K: Since we can't possibly keep these people from obtaining firearms, the only reasonable thing to do is relax legislation even further disarm the law abiding.

Good thinking!

Blues_X: I keep hearing that argument, but the recent mass killings involved guns that were purchased legally.

And used illegally while the law abiding sat idly by...

Hobodeluxe: Why not allow people to have fertilizer bombs too then?

You know...I can own fertilizer AND diesel fuel. Just like I can own a firearm. My use of those items in a given fashion might be illegal but my ownership is not.

and also the capacity for mass casualties should also be limited. that's why you can't just go and buy that fertilizer in mass quantities w/o a license and/or being flagged by DHS/ATFthat's why you can't legally buy fully automatics,frag grenades ,C-4,landmines and such.

there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.

You mean when they were in one dark theater that a smoke bomb had been released in, and in the theater next door, where they couldn't even see the killer? Yeah opening fire in that situation sounds really logically sound.

make me some tea:Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)

Well first as someone said "why not"

The main reason is that it is just another restriction upon our Constitutional rights that in truth does nothing to make us safer.

I shoot competitively both cowboy and "action." Action shooting involves multiple targets with multiple rounds- I have shot 40 round stages- fired so as a competitor the bigger the magazine the less I have to reload, For self defense unlike the Police I do not have a radio in which I can request the world to back me up and have them do so on average in under 2.5 minutes, you and I have 911 where the average response times ranges from 4.9 minutes to over 15 minutes. Now if I am in a situation to where I am forced to use lethal force, I may not have access to spare magazines it only makes sense to have the highest capacity magazine my gun will take and fire reliably since it will be a long time (relatively speaking) before I am assisted, and with today's crime trends it is most likely I will have multiple bad guys trying to do me harm making those few extra rounds in a magazine something very nice to have- you know the same reason the cops switched from revolvers even though the .357 is the proven king of handguns in stopping a threat.

The magazine debate is is another attempt to place a restriction upon the law abiding, one that the criminal element will ignore. Magazine bans and assault gun bans are as effective as limiting the size of gas tanks and banning spoilers to stop street racing. It all boils down to those wanting to break the law will do so.

Another thing to consider is if this does happen all it will do is create another business opportunity for the cartels who will then start smuggling actual military hardware in with the drugs. I know that the Cops I am friends with would rather face some homie with a semi-auto AK type rifle rather than the select fire military version.

Currently I live in California where we have the laws the antis want Nationally and I can tell you from experience and the crime stats verify that all these laws do is deter the law abiding from owning a firearm, the criminal element is having no problems getting what they want on the illegal market.

Gun owners: "I've never shot the place up. Why are you so afraid of me?"You: "We are afraid of the gun - not the man"Gun owners: "But the gun is just a tool with no will of its own. If you fear the gun you really fear me but don't have the guts to say so".You: ...Gun owners: "And WE are the ones accused of being illogical, fear driven, and dishonest?"

The main reason is that it is just another restriction upon our Constitutional rights that in truth does nothing to make us safer.

I shoot competitively both cowboy and "action." Action shooting involves multiple targets with multiple rounds- I have shot 40 round stages- fired so as a competitor the bigger the magazine the less I have to reload, For self defense unlike the Police I do not have a radio in which I can request the world to back me up and have them do so on average in under 2.5 minutes, you and I have 911 where the average response times ranges from 4.9 minutes to over 15 minutes. Now if I am in a situation to where I am forced to use lethal force, I may not have access to spare magazines it only makes sense to have the highest capacity magazine my gun will take and fire reliably since it will be a long time (relatively speaking) before I am assisted, and with today's crime trends it is most likely I will have multiple bad guys trying to do me harm making those few extra rounds in a magazine something very nice to have- you know the same reason the cops switched from revolvers even though the .357 is the proven king of handguns in stopping a threat.

The magazine debate is is another attempt to place a restriction upon the law abiding, one that the criminal element will ignore. Magazine bans and assault gun bans are as effective as limiting the size of gas tanks and banning spoilers to stop street racing. It all boils down to those wanting to break the law will do so.

Another thing to consider is if this does happen all it will do is create another business opportunity for the cartels who will then start smuggling actual military hardware in with the drugs. I know that the Cops I am friends with would rather face some homie with a semi-auto AK type rifle rather than the select fire military version.

Currently I live in California where we have the laws the antis want Nationally and I can tell you from experience ...

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.

Did they utilize legal or illegal weaponry to execute those mass shootings?

Let's be honest - an assault rifle is pretty efective. A missile is more effective. If the goal is the biggest casualty possible and they selected a deadly legal weapon and not a deadlier illegal weapon . . . Then it certainly is an effective deterrent.

itsdan:How much harder is it to use 3 or 4 30round magazines than 1 100 round magazine?

Not much, so then the question becomes why ban the 100 rounder other than as your comments indicate to makes you feel safe. It is like saying cars can only have 4 cylinder engines to reduce fatalities caused by speeding; it sounds neat but in practice does not do squat!

Instead of focusing on the tool focus on the doer, Both Uncle Fester in Tucson and Side Show Bob in Aurora had displayed the signs of mental illness that had been seen by many yet due to our current mental health system they were able to run around without getting the treatment they needed,

mahuika:You mean when they were in one dark theater that a smoke bomb had been released in, and in the theater next door, where they couldn't even see the killer? Yeah opening fire in that situation sounds really logically sound.

It was light enough for this eyewitness account:

"At first, I didn't think it was anything serious, I thought it was a joke or part of the show... he came in, he was five feet away from me, he came in on my right side, I was in the second row in the very front. He came in and he threw in the gas can," Jennifer Seeger, another theatergoer, told NBC News. "And then I knew it was real. And then he shot the ceiling, and right after he shot the ceiling, he pointed the gun right at me,"

PolloDiablo:Using your line of logic, I should really be allowed to own any weapon regardless of it's potential for harm, right?

I know quite a few people who own automatic weapons. I cannot name a single one of them whom I would consider to be a threat to society.

Bontesla:Did they utilize legal or illegal weaponry to execute those mass shootings?

Legal. What's your point? If they were illegally obtained the result would have been different?

Bontesla:Let's be honest - an assault rifle is pretty effective. A missile is more effective. If the goal is the biggest casualty possible and they selected a deadly legal weapon and not a deadlier illegal weapon . . . Then it certainly is an effective deterrent.

Exactly. And just because someone could get a certain weapon or magazine on the black market, it doesn't mean that they will. And it will certainly be more expensive.

Gun owners: "I've never shot the place up. Why are you so afraid of me?"You: "We are afraid of the gun - not the man"Gun owners: "But the gun is just a tool with no will of its own. If you fear the gun you really fear me but don't have the guts to say so".You: ...Gun owners: "And WE are the ones accused of being illogical, fear driven, and dishonest?"

Dancin_In_Anson:I know quite a few people who own automatic weapons. I cannot name a single one of them whom I would consider to be a threat to society.

Neither of you actually addressed the question. Employing the line of logic that you are, shouldn't I be allowed to own any weapon, including things like landmines and RPGs? If not, why?